The Bottom Line

[_Drifting]

The fact is, you have no discernible way of identifying which of you is wrong.

yes there is, in fact, a way

Which is?

[_subgenius]

Which is?

[_Drifting]

Which is?

I kind of guessed you couldn't answer... not...

From the OP:

Consequently, no precept, claim or belief system is more deservedly suspect and more likely to be false than one that can only be justified by claiming divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority!

From Bonneville International

"Their unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. They call this uniquely powerful brand of creative HeartSell® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response."

Can Elder Packer help us any on this matter?

1983 LDS Ensign magazine article titled "Candle of the Lord":

"Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.

The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary."

[_subgenius]

Can Elder Packer help us any on this matter?

1983 LDS Ensign magazine article titled "Candle of the Lord":

"Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.

The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary."

BUMP for Gunnar
BUMP for Drifting

[_Sethbag]

I didn't state that. I said speak with God, not with yourself. You speak to God like you do any other man. If that isn't what you are doing, then how do you know you are speaking with God? So, please don't equate feelings, or feeling like you are talking with God with ACTUALLY talking with God.

Change what I said to reflect millions of people "speaking with God" and the bottom line is the same. They are convinced they're doing it, but apparently are wrong about that, since they come up with contradictory and often demonstrably wrong answers from their chats with God.

Again, even if I attempted to speak with God, and even if I felt in my mind like I heard an answer, there's no particularly good reason why I would be justified in assuming that what I felt I heard in my mind was actually the voice of God. There are too many alternate explanations which are far more parsimonious. We don't get to just eliminate them in favor of the God explanation just because we would like it to be true.

And this counts double when we look around and see this exact scenario played out over and over again with other people who are undoubtedly wrong.

[_Tobin]

I didn't state that. I said speak with God, not with yourself. You speak to God like you do any other man. If that isn't what you are doing, then how do you know you are speaking with God? So, please don't equate feelings, or feeling like you are talking with God with ACTUALLY talking with God.

Change what I said to reflect millions of people "speaking with God" and the bottom line is the same. They are convinced they're doing it, but apparently are wrong about that, since they come up with contradictory and often demonstrably wrong answers from their chats with God.

You don't know that and neither do I. That is between them and God. Personally, I'd rather interact with a being that talks back and you can see.

Again, even if I attempted to speak with God, and even if I felt in my mind like I heard an answer, there's no particularly good reason why I would be justified in assuming that what I felt I heard in my mind was actually the voice of God. There are too many alternate explanations which are far more parsimonious. We don't get to just eliminate them in favor of the God explanation just because we would like it to be true.

See the underlined part. I said, actually speak with God. I wouldn't settle for anything less than that.

And this counts double when we look around and see this exact scenario played out over and over again with other people who are undoubtedly wrong.

Again, that is between them and God. All I really am interested in is getting people to actually speak with God. After that, it is between them and God.

[_Sethbag]

Change what I said to reflect millions of people "speaking with God" and the bottom line is the same. They are convinced they're doing it, but apparently are wrong about that, since they come up with contradictory and often demonstrably wrong answers from their chats with God.

You don't know that and neither do I. That is between them and God. Personally, I'd rather interact with a being that talks back and you can see.

Classic smokescreen. If this method were manifestly reliable, I bet you it wouldn't just be between themselves and God - you'd be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But it's manifestly not reliable, so you'd prefer we not consider the track record of this method at all.

But it's a perfectly valid question. You are advocating a method for learning or determining truth. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to consider the track record of this method, before putting any faith or credence in it. And the track record sucks.

If these other people can believe they are getting real truth from God, but they are wrong in that belief, then I need to see a very good reason why I should expect to get different results myself. "Just try it!" isn't a good response to this. Presumably these others just tried it too, and it didn't work.

Again, even if I attempted to speak with God, and even if I felt in my mind like I heard an answer, there's no particularly good reason why I would be justified in assuming that what I felt I heard in my mind was actually the voice of God. There are too many alternate explanations which are far more parsimonious. We don't get to just eliminate them in favor of the God explanation just because we would like it to be true.

See the underlined part. I said, actually speak with God. I wouldn't settle for anything less than that.

If God exists, and wants to chat, let him come down and chat with us all. I'm done with people claiming they've spoken directly with God. It's getting old.

And this counts double when we look around and see this exact scenario played out over and over again with other people who are undoubtedly wrong.

Again, that is between them and God. All I really am interested in is getting people to actually speak with God. After that, it is between them and God.

It is appalling to me that you would advocate methods for people to implement in their lives and use as a basis for making important decisions, and not seem to care whether or not the methods are reliable or actually work.

[_Tobin]

Classic smokescreen. If this method were manifestly reliable, I bet you it wouldn't just be between themselves and God - you'd be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But it's manifestly not reliable, so you'd prefer we not consider the track record of this method at all.

Hardly a smokescreen. Where do you think the scriptures come from in the first place? There are two possibilities. They are made up stories, or people have done EXACTLY what I'm talking about. With that many accounts, you can decide if it is real or not - but they seem very reliable if true.

But it's a perfectly valid question. You are advocating a method for learning or determining truth. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to consider the track record of this method, before putting any faith or credence in it. And the track record sucks.

I'm not advocating just simply learning the truth. You can believe God is real now (and that is true) and learn about him from the scriptures. No, I'm talking about discovering and knowing the truth for yourself and to know with certainty that God really exists because you've seen him as I have. And I'm happy to discuss this topic with you Sethbag, but for me (and others like me) there is no question there is a God and we absolutely know that you are mistaken and will discover that in time.

If these other people can believe they are getting real truth from God, but they are wrong in that belief, then I need to see a very good reason why I should expect to get different results myself. "Just try it!" isn't a good response to this. Presumably these others just tried it too, and it didn't work.

The truth is there is a God period - everything else follows. Don't put the cart before the horse here.

If God exists, and wants to chat, let him come down and chat with us all. I'm done with people claiming they've spoken directly with God. It's getting old.

He will in his own due time. What do you suppose the end time is about? It is the end of man's separation from God. Eventually the Millenium will arrive and we will have God in our midst.

It is appalling to me that you would advocate methods for people to implement in their lives and use as a basis for making important decisions, and not seem to care whether or not the methods are reliable or actually work.

The methods work just fine. It is how God does it and is the nature of it. You must decide if it is worthwhile to you or not. I personally don't think your current position is all that pleasant and is self-destructive. But I'm sure that will become clear to you in time.

[_Themis]

I don't recall that post, but many LDS still believe in God and view the flood allegorical.

Dear Themis!

It doesn't matter whether or not you remember that post. It also doesn't matter how many people do or do not believe the flood was global. What matters is our love for one another.

Actually it can matter, and can affect people in ways you may not realize. That love matters does not entail other things do not matter.

It does not matter to me that you have such a great need to prove you are correct and/or to prove me wrong. We already know where we both currently stand.

Not sure why you are getting on me for what everyone here, including you, are doing. I have noticed you discussions with people like nipper, etc.

[_Themis]

The appeal to Divine authority is infallible.

In the light of the observation stated in my OP, this is so obviously untrue, that it absolutely amazes me that any rational and fully cognizant person can actually believe that! By far the most unreliable approach to gaining and discerning truth is faith based appeal to divine authority that is not backed up by tangible evidence--especially if the faith is flatly contradicted by the best available evidence. I reemphasize again that the thousands of mutually contradictory religious belief systems whose adherents sincerely claim they are based on an appeal to Divine authority is incontrovertible proof of that! You remind me of an acquaintance I once knew who told me that he believes that 2 + 2 = 4 only because the Holy Ghost confirmed that to him in answer to prayer.

Subby can't even explain what this means and how any fallible person can receive some infallible witness.